Apple's solution to shaving thickness from the Retina MacBook Pro—gluing its lithium polymer battery cells directly to the aluminum unibody shell—continues to spark debate among proponents of sustainable electronics. Apple submitted the device to the Green Electronics Council for an EPEAT Gold rating last week, prompting critics to argue that the glued-in battery should disqualify it from any rating at all. But it turns out that some recyclers disagree, saying it isn't dramatically more difficult to safely remove the battery than in other modern devices.

Muddying the waters further is Apple itself. On the one hand, Apple's position seems to be that the Retina MacBook Pro qualifies for its EPEAT rating because the battery can be easily removed with "common" tools. On the other hand, an internal memo sent to AppleCare and certified third-party technicians claims that the battery should not be removed from the aluminum casing "for any reason."

All due to some glue

The Retina MacBook Pro features a six-cell lithium polymer battery with a 95 Whr capacity—a 23 percent increase over the previous MacBook Pro design. To pack the larger battery inside the thinner case of the Retina MacBook Pro, however, Apple opted to attach the cells directly to the upper unibody casing using an industrial-strength adhesive.

That fact alone caused a wave of debate over repair issues. Teardown experts at iFixit criticized the decision by pointing out that the design made repair or replacement difficult, if not outright impossible, for users or third-party repair technicians. Apple does offer a battery replacement program, though it costs a pretty penny, at $199.

Then, just weeks after the Retina MacBook Pro was released, Apple raised eyebrows in the tech industry by removing all of its products from the EPEAT green electronics registry. The move was surprising for a couple of reasons. As part of Apple's marketing, it has touted the fact that all of its computers had been given EPEAT's highest "Gold" rating. Apple was a member of EPEAT, a voluntary registry and rating system for electronics manufacturers. And Apple was also involved in creating the IEEE 1680 standards which form the basis of EPEAT's ratings criteria.

But those standards were drafted in 2006 (and ratified in 2009). Apple's recent complaint implied that the standards had not been updated to account for many of the newer improvements Apple and some other manufacturers had implemented, such as the removal of PVC plastics and brominated flame retardants, or achieving newer, more strict Energy Star ratings. "Apple products are superior in other important environmental areas not measured by EPEAT, such as removal of toxic materials," Apple spokesperson Kristin Huget said in defense of the company's withdrawal from EPEAT.

Many observers believed that Apple's quest for ever-thinner computers and devices was behind the move. Apple's engineering efforts have resulted in impressively thin laptops and tablets, for instance, but the trade-off is that the devices are harder to disassemble and repair. Days after the pull-out, though, Apple Senior VP of Product Engineering Bob Mansfield posted a public letter to Apple's website announcing that the company would rejoin EPEAT and work with the group to update its standards.

"We’ve recently heard from many loyal Apple customers who were disappointed to learn that we had removed our products from the EPEAT rating system. I recognize that this was a mistake. Starting today, all eligible Apple products are back on EPEAT," Mansfield wrote.

More surprising than the pull-out and reversal, however, is that Apple included the Retina MacBook Pro and its troubled battery among its registered EPEAT products, claiming it qualified for "Gold" status.

Enlarge/ Apple applied lessons learned from the MacBook Air to make its Retina MacBook Pro thinner and lighter.

Chris Foresman

Barbara Kyle, speaking for the Electronics Take Back Coalition (ETBC), suggested that the Retina MacBook Pro should not qualify for an EPEAT rating of any kind. Her analysis of the battery, based on work by iFixit, was that it can't safely and easily be removed with simple tools, a required criterion for an EPEAT rating.

"Ease" of removal is relative

Ars spoke to two large companies that specialize in recycling electronics to find out their opinions on just how difficult the Retina MacBook Pro's battery is to remove. Surprisingly, both seemed confident that the glued-in battery wouldn't present any major difficulties.

"We haven't seen it yet for recycling, but we have dealt with glued-in batteries in the past," Sims Recycling Solutions America President Steve Skurnac told Ars. "It's a little more difficult, for sure, than those that pop out. Some products come in where the batteries are deep inside or hidden; having them glued in makes it a little more difficult, but not a lot more."

Sims is contracted by Apple to recycle the devices gathered by the company's electronics take-back program, and it services Macs, iPhones, and iPads, as well as PCs, smartphones, and other devices from competing manufacturers.

"We are always looking at issues for different kinds of products, so I don't know that these new MacBook Pros are going to be horribly difficult [to take apart], or maybe just mildly inconvenient."

ECS Refining is more confident that the battery can be efficiently removed from the Retina MacBook Pro, however. CEO Jim Taggart told Ars that it has already dealt with some pre-production samples, and that the battery can be separated from the case using a tool similar to a common putty knife. Removing the battery "just takes a different process," Taggart said.

"Puncturing the battery is a risk with other devices, and in our experience, scraping the battery out of a [Retina] MacBook Pro is no riskier," Taggart explained. "Lithium ion can be a dangerous material, but it's in everything now. We have whole processes to remove these from devices before separating out other materials."

Still, iFixit CEO Kyle Wiens disputed the claim that scraping the battery would be particularly easy. The problem is that the individual cells are glued into 2mm-deep wells sculpted into the aluminum unibody. Wiens suggested that the design makes simple scraping a non-option, as his own careful attempts to do the same resulted in a punctured battery cell. And punctured Li-Po batteries can combust when their internal chemistry mixes with air.

Enlarge/ To the left and right of the underside of the trackpad, you can just discern the edges of the sculpted wells that hold four of the Retina MacBook Pro's six Li-Po cells.

iFixit

"Recyclers have a can-do attitude—they'll say they can do anything, and they will find a way to do it," Wiens told Ars. "The issue is that when products take them a long time to disassemble, it erodes their profit margins. There's no way they could be profitable if all their products were as hard to disassemble as Apple's."

Indeed, smaller recyclers apparently find working with Apple machines problematic, according to ETBC's Kyle. "A common complaint that we hear from recyclers that aren't under contract with Apple is that their devices are harder to take apart and take more time. Product designers are primarily thinking about performance, not 'how many steps does it take to remove the battery?'" she said.

But both Skernac and Taggart say that what they characterize as a "little" extra effort is worth it because Apple's devices contain more high-quality materials that are easier to recycle and worth more money.

"Apple tends to be more recyclable and more valuable than what's made by other manufacturers," Taggart explained. "Is there extra effort to remove the battery? Yes, but the other materials being used make it a more preferable device to be recycled."

"If I had to make a choice of material to take in, it would always be Apple over other manufacturers," Taggart said.

Skernac agreed. "Apple equipment tends to have more metal, less plastic, and therefore more value than other devices, so that can make up for a more difficult [battery] removable process."

"We'll devise a way to remove them in a safe manner. From our perspective, we would make sure that the process won't run the risk of puncturing the battery," Skernac said. "That may be some kind of bench setup that uses a custom machine to safely remove the batteries. But at this time, we're anticipating being able to do it with common tools."

Everybody keeps saying this, and then everyone (almost) keeps saying that it requires something toxic to remove the adhesive/glue. But nowhere does anyone bother to try to find out what kind it is, or what kind of solvent would best be used.

It would be great if we could get an answer to this as it would put many questions to rest about how recycling the computer works.

Muddying the waters further is Apple itself. On the one hand, Apple's position seems to be that the Retina MacBook Pro qualifies for its EPEAT rating because the battery can be easily removed with "common" tools. On the other hand, an internal memo sent to AppleCare and certified third-party technicians claims that the battery should not be removed from the aluminum casing "for any reason."

This isn't really that confusing.

The first quote obviously came from the marketing department, and the second one came from people who aren't paid to spew bullshit.

Everybody keeps saying this, and then everyone (almost) keeps saying that it requires something toxic to remove the adhesive/glue. But nowhere does anyone bother to try to find out what kind it is, or what kind of solvent would best be used.

It would be great if we could get an answer to this as it would put many questions to rest about how recycling the computer works.

If it was easily/safely removed with a chemical why would Apple reccomend replacing the entire top case to replace the battery? If it was easy to remove you'd think they'd reccomend merely replacing the battery since the top case with it's keyboard, mouse and metal would be more expensive than a chemical to remove adhesives.

""Typical Apple devices last about twice as long as other devices, and users use them much longer. To me that's 'philosophically' better than having to recycle it in the first place," Taggart said."

People always say this too, yet my Apple computers have had way more problems and failed way earlier than my other computers. Maybe I'm just unlucky, but I don't find them any better at all.

It can't be "that hard" to remove the batteries once the computer is ready for recycling purposes. If the glue is that strong, then I'd be more worried about the battery casing coming apart when trying to remove them from the computer (as mentioned by the CEO of iFixit).

Is elbow grease not considered a "common tool" anymore?

Either way, you're talking about Apple - it's not like they're going to listen to anybody anyways.

My favourite is freezing it first (with freeze spray) and just whacking it loose.

I agree that Apple appears to be using adhesive strips, but freeze-spraying the Li-Po cells, or getting a solvent underneath them to remove them seems likely to cause more problems than it might attempt to solve. Apple is warning certified, trained techs to not even TOUCH the batteries, much less recommending they be "whacked off"; I suspect that's just straight up dangerous.

Nearly ALL batteries are glued in somewhere. Maybe not in the device casing, but then they're glued into the battery casing, which (in user-removable batteries) usually is very solid and more often than not -- glued together. So even if you can safely and easily remove such a battery from the device even without any tools you need to disassemble it at some point and you're hitting exactly the same problem as with the rMBP, just a little later.

I really would like to know what actually happens with li-ion batteries that are recycled and how these individual battery casings are handled then. Is there any EPEAT-qualification at this point?

Apple should just glue and shrink-wrap the batteries into some thin plastic film and slap them into that MBP. Problem solved. Well, not really, it's still the same problem, but EPEAT would be satisfied.

Let's be careful--there are two distinct conversations going on. One is about how easy it is to _recycle_ the rMBP, one is about how easy it is to repair. The iFixit guys and the Apple repair manual are really talking about the latter, whereas EPEAT and the recyclers and Apple corporate are talking about the former. I can easily understand why Apple would be worried about taking off the batteries during a _repair_ (how hard is it to glue new batteries back on? How easy is it to damage the case when you remove the batteries?) for reasons that have nothing to do with recycling.

Muddying the waters further is Apple itself. On the one hand, Apple's position seems to be that the Retina MacBook Pro qualifies for its EPEAT rating because the battery can be easily removed with "common" tools. On the other hand, an internal memo sent to AppleCare and certified third-party technicians claims that the battery should not be removed from the aluminum casing "for any reason."

I don't see how this is inconsistent. The battery can be removed with common tools, but only if you don't plan on reusing the parts. So no problem for recyclers, big problem for repair techs.

I agree that Apple appears to be using adhesive strips, but freeze-spraying the Li-Po cells, or getting a solvent underneath them to remove them seems likely to cause more problems than it might attempt to solve. Apple is warning certified, trained techs to not even TOUCH the batteries, much less recommending they be "whacked off"; I suspect that's just straight up dangerous.

They wouldn't spray or touch the cells themselves, that's the beauty of the aluminium, it's an excellent thermal conductor.

Just spray the top of the case down to -40C, give the case a sharp blow with a soft hammer, the adhesive will fracture and the batteries should pop-out. Just don't let the batteries fall very far and do it in a safe workbench.

The batteries themselves have no inherent danger in going down to that temperature.

Can someone explain to me the necessity of gluing the batteries into the case in the first place? The battery is an internal component that fits into a machined aluminum casing. Presumably the structure of the case and the thinness of the machine would keep the battery held firmly and tightly in place. There doesn't seem to be any room for movement inside the machine. For argument's sake, assuming there is some movement of the battery within the case without glue to hold it in place, why not use a long lasting adhesive that doesn't require a lot of force to separate? There are firm glues out there that don't require a crowbar, aren't there?

Apple is warning certified, trained techs to not even TOUCH the batteries, much less recommending they be "whacked off"; I suspect that's just straight up dangerous.

Couldn't that warning be to prevent them from being unable to actually reassemble the computer? If you're talking about millimeters of difference, taking the battery out and putting a new one back in with any of the old adhesive on the bottom might be the difference between the case closing tightly or not, at which point you've just ruined both a case and another set of batteries.

Other than leechable toxic materials my response to the matter is a big meh. Our dumps will become the mines of the future. Which is easier, extracting gold at less than one ounce per ton from ore or trying to extract it from a dump? The same holds for Lithium, once the big easy deposits are used up the choice will be between dumps and seawater extraction and I can bet you $20 right now that it will be easier to extract from dumps then from seawater.

Everybody keeps saying this, and then everyone (almost) keeps saying that it requires something toxic to remove the adhesive/glue. But nowhere does anyone bother to try to find out what kind it is, or what kind of solvent would best be used.

It would be great if we could get an answer to this as it would put many questions to rest about how recycling the computer works.

If it was easily/safely removed with a chemical why would Apple reccomend replacing the entire top case to replace the battery? If it was easy to remove you'd think they'd reccomend merely replacing the battery since the top case with it's keyboard, mouse and metal would be more expensive than a chemical to remove adhesives.

I was talking about how to salvage it, not how to repair it, very few devices can be repaired where one step is submersion for a few hours in water, yet water can be a very good solvent.

That memo reads a lot like the iPhone 4S memo, where the in-store technician should send the phone onto another tier if there are any unusual problems and just replace the phone with a new one. Presumably Apple uses that tier with more advanced tools where they safely can recover everything.

There is a diminishing return on the value of making electronics last longer. Even if my hardware continues to work for 10 years, I wont be using it for more than 4 at the max. On average, I replace everything every two years (though not at all once).

Being able to repair the tech is not a benefit to me. I get rid of it long before it stops working.

My favourite is freezing it first (with freeze spray) and just whacking it loose.

I agree that Apple appears to be using adhesive strips, but freeze-spraying the Li-Po cells, or getting a solvent underneath them to remove them seems likely to cause more problems than it might attempt to solve.

salamanderjuice wrote:

If it was easily/safely removed with a chemical why would Apple reccomend replacing the entire top case to replace the battery?

Um guys, there is a big, BIG difference between a technician replacing something as part of a repair and a recycler disassembling it for component reprocessing. One of those cares about other bits of the item working afterwards, and being able to put it back together again in some form, and one doesn't. It's quite possible to have stuff that is very hard to repair and very easy to disassemble/recycle and vice versa. To use the example of glue, some glues come apart easy as pie if you just heat/freeze them, in fact it can be even easy and faster then dealing with screws. Just heat/freeze and it's a sandwich that practically falls apart. Of course, doing so will destroy any microchips on board, wreck fine cable/connection work, and never come back together, but that only matters to a technician and a repair shop, and matters zero to a recycler.

So yeah, repair places may well be advised to avoid it like the plague because they'll inevitably break a bunch more dealing with it, but I'd trust the recyclers to know what they're talking about as far as economic constructive destruction. A lot will depend on what sort of adhesive Apple actually used though. As inpher said "industrial-strength" is a bunch of stupid marketdroid-speak and tells us nothing useful about how strong it is or what sort of chemical and physical characteristics it has.

Glue? Recyclers and how hard it is to break in to pieces? Missing the point.

A new battery is $200, two trips to the shop and the precautions you take with your private data before dropping it off. The machine is made to be tossed out in a couple years when the battery fades. Planned obsolescence, throw out, buy new. The true believers can do it in one year for the shiny new throw away model.

It isn't just the battery either. Forget adding memory or a higher capacity disk or fixing a broken part. The plan is you throw it out and buy new. Oh yes, throw it out is greened over by the Apple recycling program. You can feel good from their assurances it isn't going in some land fill but your machine is still junked. A maintainable machine could be sold or given away and used by someone without the money for shiny new toys.

Ignoring the planned limited life while looking at how hard it is to break the case open and pry out batteries for the recycling bin is just nuts.

Can someone explain to me the necessity of gluing the batteries into the case in the first place? The battery is an internal component that fits into a machined aluminum casing. Presumably the structure of the case and the thinness of the machine would keep the battery held firmly and tightly in place. There doesn't seem to be any room for movement inside the machine. For argument's sake, assuming there is some movement of the battery within the case without glue to hold it in place, why not use a long lasting adhesive that doesn't require a lot of force to separate? There are firm glues out there that don't require a crowbar, aren't there?

I'm a bit lost on that too - Unlike the rigid metalic cans (stainless steel, I think) that Li-ion cells use which potentially offer appreciable mechanical strength, Li-po cells are contained in a flexible pouch (made from polymer/foil I believe) that's best not tested mechanically. Not that using a Li-* battery envelope as a mechnical element is a good thing given how energetically lithium reacts with moisture should its containment rupture, but I'd much rather load a Li-ion cell than a Li-po pouch.

I use laptops typically for 4 years, and generally I find batteries have lost substantial capacity after 2 years. Maybe apple batteries are higher quality, but inability to replace them would be a deal breaker. But that isn't the case: Apple will replace the battery for $200. That is expensive, crazy even, but it is still a relatively small fraction of the top-of-the-line laptop that you are paying buying at a significant premium to get the whole apple design thing. I understand why people want to replace their own battery for 1/4 of that cost, but honestly: if that is important to you, this is not the product for you. It is a luxury good with luxury prices.

I would be concerned if it weren't recyclable, but that doesn't actually appear to be the case.

Honestly, I think this whole issue is a big todo about something other than what they're talking about.Recycle, don't recycle. Be a member of Epeat or don't. It won't change how Apple builds its stuff.

The real issue is the fact that it has a component (the battery and the screen) which in a normal device is easily replaced when it is damaged (which is common for the screen) or just dies (which is inevitable for the battery) but impossible to do in an Apple device.

The battery WILL die. It will die in one to two years in most cases. With it being glued in it is impossible to fix or replace. You'll have to pay Apple $200 to replace it and I would guess that at that point Apple would scrap the thing and issue a referb unit to the customer.

IMO, regardless of Epeat or "Green" standards, building something that is DESIGNED to die prematurely, thereby requiring a new purchase is reprehensible, and certainly not "Earth Friendly".They can talk out of the side of their mouths all they want about using recycled materials and meeting this standard or that standard. It doesn't change the fact that greed causes Apple to build a product which must be replaced in a short time, WELL short if it's normal lifespan.

And THAT is what has really got people up in arms and should actually be the story.

The battery WILL die. It will die in one to two years in most cases. With it being glued in it is impossible to fix or replace. You'll have to pay Apple $200 to replace it and I would guess that at that point Apple would scrap the thing and issue a referb unit to the customer.

This is false, if the battery dies within two years Apple will replace it for free.

Muddying the waters further is Apple itself. On the one hand, Apple's position seems to be that the Retina MacBook Pro qualifies for its EPEAT rating because the battery can be easily removed with "common" tools. On the other hand, an internal memo sent to AppleCare and certified third-party technicians claims that the battery should not be removed from the aluminum casing "for any reason."

I don't see how this is inconsistent. The battery can be removed with common tools, but only if you don't plan on reusing the parts. So no problem for recyclers, big problem for repair techs.

As iFixit and ETBC would argue—and I think the point has merit—that a battery that hard to remove without damage is a problem for recyclers, too. If carefully scraping it can cause puncture, the chemistry quickly becomes combustible and a technician could get burned or worse.

If Apple is saying even a top casing part with the attached battery is even dropped that it should be considered "DOA" and replaced, that suggests to me that recyclers won't have an easy time of it.

I personally hope that gkdot's suspicion is correct, and spraying some coolant on the top and tapping with a mallet would easily and safely remove the battery. But damaged batteries are no good to recyclers any more than they are to repair shops—a damaged cell will have to be disposed of using proper hazmat techniques, and may not be able to be sent to a lithium battery recycler to recover the lithium.

Clearly recycling a rMBP isn't impossible as some critics suggest, but it's not clear that the process to remove the battery is "easy" or "simple" as required by IEEE 1680.1. It'll be up to EPEAT if they let that fly, but my suspicion is that there is probably a way—as other commenters have suggested—to use an adhesive that facilitates easier removal, or some other type of attachment with a frame or clips or something else.

Multiple different issues at play here when it comes to "environmental impact":

- User serviceability: How hard is it for a handy person - not a professional technician - to take this apart, replace/upgrade some part, and put it back together? Ending up with a working machine of course. This is the best option, keeping the device working with the original owner. The retina completely fails this area.

- Longevity: How long does it last before needing replacement? Before being outdated? This varies from device to device - phones tend to be throw away after 2 years, while computers tend to be used longer. Very close importance to user serviceability. We would need statistics and historical data, but my opinion is Apple gets above average overall here. So I'll give the retina above average (again, my opinion).

- Professional repair: How hard is it for professional technicians to take the machine apart and fix it? How much does it cost for that? Apple's own memos tell their techs absolutely do not remove the battery. The display glass is fused. Expensive machine, expensive parts, difficult to take apart and repair. Below average.

- Recycling: Last option, device is unusable and tossed. How hard is it for professional recyclers to tear it down, with no concern for repair? What's the value of the materials used? How likely is it to be recycled instead of thrown in the garbage? Recycler opinions vary, but it seems to converge around "more difficult, but we'll figure it out." Apple seems to have a higher-than-average recycle rate, and the materials used are above-averge. So it balances out to average recycling-wise.

tl;dr - Multiple different factors at work here, but looking at several, I think the Retina MB comes out very slightly below average as far as environmental impact. What's unfortunate is that so little would have been lost to improve that significantly. But in a cutthroat market where every 0.1mm is prized, it's the way things are headed.

Glue? Recyclers and how hard it is to break in to pieces? Missing the point.

A new battery is $200, two trips to the shop and the precautions you take with your private data before dropping it off. The machine is made to be tossed out in a couple years when the battery fades. Planned obsolescence, throw out, buy new. The true believers can do it in one year for the shiny new throw away model.

It isn't just the battery either. Forget adding memory or a higher capacity disk or fixing a broken part. The plan is you throw it out and buy new. Oh yes, throw it out is greened over by the Apple recycling program. You can feel good from their assurances it isn't going in some land fill but your machine is still junked. A maintainable machine could be sold or given away and used by someone without the money for shiny new toys.

Ignoring the planned limited life while looking at how hard it is to break the case open and pry out batteries for the recycling bin is just nuts.

A new battery is $200, two trips to the shop and the precautions you take with your private data before dropping it off. The machine is made to be tossed out in a couple years when the battery fades.

So according to published figures, 5 to 6 years.

Quote:

Planned obsolescence, throw out, buy new. The true believers can do it in one year for the shiny new throw away model.

According to the recyclers, Apple's product last significantly longer in the field than those who have much easier to repair/upgrade parts. So either you're wrong, or they are, and if they are wrong why are people waiting three years before recycling their Macs?

Quote:

It isn't just the battery either. Forget adding memory or a higher capacity disk or fixing a broken part. The plan is you throw it out and buy new. Oh yes, throw it out is greened over by the Apple recycling program. You can feel good from their assurances it isn't going in some land fill but your machine is still junked. A maintainable machine could be sold or given away and used by someone without the money for shiny new toys.

Again, according to the recyclers, Apple's machines are the ones that are used for several years and it is the disposable Windows machines that are thrown out.

Quote:

Ignoring the planned limited life while looking at how hard it is to break the case open and pry out batteries for the recycling bin is just nuts.

Glue? Recyclers and how hard it is to break in to pieces? Missing the point.

A new battery is $200, two trips to the shop and the precautions you take with your private data before dropping it off. The machine is made to be tossed out in a couple years when the battery fades. Planned obsolescence, throw out, buy new. The true believers can do it in one year for the shiny new throw away model.

It isn't just the battery either. Forget adding memory or a higher capacity disk or fixing a broken part. The plan is you throw it out and buy new. Oh yes, throw it out is greened over by the Apple recycling program. You can feel good from their assurances it isn't going in some land fill but your machine is still junked. A maintainable machine could be sold or given away and used by someone without the money for shiny new toys.

Ignoring the planned limited life while looking at how hard it is to break the case open and pry out batteries for the recycling bin is just nuts.

The battery WILL die. It will die in one to two years in most cases. With it being glued in it is impossible to fix or replace. You'll have to pay Apple $200 to replace it

norton_I wrote:

I use laptops typically for 4 years, and generally I find batteries have lost substantial capacity after 2 years. Maybe apple batteries are higher quality, but inability to replace them would be a deal breaker. But that isn't the case: Apple will replace the battery for $200. That is expensive, crazy even, but it is still a relatively small fraction of the top-of-the-line laptop

Wait a minute. Remember that the Apple battery is a 1000-cycle battery. That means all your experience with the typically 300-cycle batteries that come with most laptops (and older Apple laptops) does not necessarily apply. Where a typical battery might have been done after 2 years, with the 1000-cycle battery it might be done after 6+ years. And what Apple is betting on is that you will be done with with laptop before the 6+ years when the battery runtime falls below a usable threshold. For the percentage of units where Apple wins its bet (presumably a comfortable majority of them if Apple did its life cycle modeling correctly), Apple is then justified in not lowering the capacity to make it removable, because it never needed to be removed.

For the percentage of batteries that do fail early, yes, the battery replacement price is $199. But let's stop and think again about what that really means. A typical 300-cycle battery costs over $100. The Apple battery gives you potentially over 3x that runtime, yet the price is under 2x: That means the Apple battery is cheaper per watt-hour than a typical battery. And that's not all: The replacement price includes installation. So the Apple battery service price is quite favorable, in context. And of course, if it fails within the warranty period, your cost is zero.

To put this into some context, after using for a full workday M-F for about 4 years, the battery should still last approximately 5.6 hours before needing recharging. The capacity fall off isn't linear; so after another year it probably won't work more than a couple hours, at which point you could have the battery replaced for $200 if you wanted, and either keep the machine or sell it (someone else could use it for another 4 years or so) and get yourself a newer machine with potentially better battery tech.

For me I think its getting ridiculous for Apple to make expensive notebooks like this that do not allow for any upgrades and forces you to go to a repair facility or send your laptop out for even a battery repair?Even a failed RAM chip is made worse to repair since its soldered onto the main board. I have had RAM fail before in my Mac's and so now what was once a 10 minute job is now days or weeks. Apple is basically convincing you to spend more on upgrades when you buy your pretty Mac and on top of that nudges you into buying a new Mac when you have issues with battery life or other problems because of the difficulty of having to send in your Mac. I hate to say it, but a $2500 plus Retina Mac is a very expensive throwaway PC.

To put this into some context, after using for a full workday M-F for about 4 years, the battery should still last approximately 5.6 hours before needing recharging. The capacity fall off isn't linear; so after another year it probably won't work more than a couple hours, at which point you could have the battery replaced for $200 if you wanted, and either keep the machine or sell it (someone else could use it for another 4 years or so) and get yourself a newer machine with potentially better battery tech.

Yup. My personal experience is that the first 20% are lost after about those cycles, and the next 20% after half the advertised cycles (should be at about 1500 cycles), and the next 20% at half that.

So, 80% at 1000 cycles, 60% at 1500 cycles, 40% at 1750 cycles.

Another way to put it into context; if you put away $4 per month for five years you will have $240, enough for a battery change and two OSX updates.

Remember that the Apple battery is a 1000-cycle battery. That means all your experience with the typically 300-cycle batteries that come with most laptops (and older Apple laptops) does not necessarily apply. Where a typical battery might have been done after 2 years, with the 1000-cycle battery it might be done after 6 years.

EPEAT can grant exceptions on a case-by-case basis, and the CEO suggested it might do as much for the rMBP in consideration of the other elements of the device that exceed EPEAT requirements or are a benefit to the environment but EPEAT standards don't (yet) recognize them.

For instance, the battery might not be easily removable (though it certainly seems possible it could be with maybe some extra effort on Apple's part), but it's usable life exceeds that of other laptop batteries which would have to be disposed of and recycled much sooner. It certainly seems there's a little room for leeway on this issue, but it will certainly look bad on both Apple and EPEAT if they get a pass this time and don't improve the situation on the next revision.

To put this into some context, after using for a full workday M-F for about 4 years, the battery should still last approximately 5.6 hours before needing recharging. The capacity fall off isn't linear; so after another year it probably won't work more than a couple hours, at which point you could have the battery replaced for $200 if you wanted, and either keep the machine or sell it (someone else could use it for another 4 years or so) and get yourself a newer machine with potentially better battery tech.

Roughly matches my own device. I have the first generation 17" Unibody. 41 months of service with 387 cycles on a 13000 mAh battery and the current capacity is 11337 mAh, or 88%.

Glue? Recyclers and how hard it is to break in to pieces? Missing the point.

A new battery is $200, two trips to the shop and the precautions you take with your private data before dropping it off. The machine is made to be tossed out in a couple years when the battery fades. Planned obsolescence, throw out, buy new. The true believers can do it in one year for the shiny new throw away model.

It isn't just the battery either. Forget adding memory or a higher capacity disk or fixing a broken part. The plan is you throw it out and buy new. Oh yes, throw it out is greened over by the Apple recycling program. You can feel good from their assurances it isn't going in some land fill but your machine is still junked. A maintainable machine could be sold or given away and used by someone without the money for shiny new toys.

Ignoring the planned limited life while looking at how hard it is to break the case open and pry out batteries for the recycling bin is just nuts.

++This is it exactly!

Read my reply to aliasundercover. Reality seems to disagree with you.

And in your case, reality = what recyclers who are contracted to do business with Apple have to say. Which is not necessarily untrue despite a clear bias in a particular outcome (continued business from Apple), but is also not above questioning just because a differing agenda wishes it so.